One of the performance factors of the BFNs used on starlink (and all the other LEO constellations, and the newer GEO internet satellites that are going away from the relative inflexibility of fixed beams) is number of users. As noted elsewhere, I'm not a dee-bee kind of guy so I concede that SpaceX may have solved the problem my feeble brain cannot fathom and have determined they can easily accommodate [essentially] unlimited users. But...such witchcraft not withstanding, I would imagine a single WISP terminal serving a hundred users ~near its capacity is going to be more attractive to spaceX from a system performance perspective than a hundred terminals humming at an equivalent ~1% capacity, especially if they're planning to operate Starlink anywhere near full capacity. I think the additional revenue from the 100 slow-package terminals (compared to one big terminal with the fully loaded package) is going to be a wash when you factor in the additional overhead that goes along with 99 more accounts.
From bxr's bag of random analogies: Most companies look toward premium services for profit. Big airlines make bank on tolerable class fares, loyalty, etc, compared to bargain cattle class tickets. Cable/internet providers make bank on upselling channel/data packages, not the people who get the basic offerings.